True - told you you were right on the mark twice a day... such an 'economy' is artificial because the skills pool will run dry and be diluted long before it remains stable .... we have no need for unskilled labour at this time....

True - told you you were right on the mark twice a day... such an 'economy' is artificial because the skills pool will run dry and be diluted long before it remains stable .... we have no need for unskilled labour at this time....

Indeed, but given Australia's immigration program - unlike the US - is skills-based, your point is irrelevant.

True - told you you were right on the mark twice a day... such an 'economy' is artificial because the skills pool will run dry and be diluted long before it remains stable .... we have no need for unskilled labour at this time....

Indeed, but given Australia's immigration program - unlike the US - is skills-based, your point is irrelevant.

Not entirely - there's family reunion, refugees and of course anyone from New Zealand and probably some other categories as well...

True - told you you were right on the mark twice a day... such an 'economy' is artificial because the skills pool will run dry and be diluted long before it remains stable .... we have no need for unskilled labour at this time....

Indeed, but given Australia's immigration program - unlike the US - is skills-based, your point is irrelevant.

Not entirely - there's family reunion, refugees and of course anyone from New Zealand and probably some other categories as well...

Not really. The 12 - 16,000 refugees a year make up bugger all of our population.

Family reunion makes up bugger-all too. The $100,000 application fee - before all the bonds and health insurance and required savings in the bank - generally puts people off.

The big unaccounted intake comes from students. I know a few immigrants who've come in this way. You come to Australia to study in a course that's high on the skills list. You then apply when you're accredited.

Health courses such as nursing, radiology and physiotherapy are good. Mind you, you have to pass the language tests, which are stringent. The Indians I know got through no worries. Others - a bit harder.

And yes, the two Indians I know both got arranged marriages back in India and applied for them to come here, but not under spousal visas, which are very hard to get through too. You need to prove, I think, an existing relationship of 5 years. You need to be a citizen. The two I know had their partners apply under the skills test. One partner was a dentist, but they soon divorced and he stayed in India.

The other's new wife came to study radiology. She's now going through the waiting period, and she needs to keep studying to qualify for the student visa.

The fees are a big barrier. Overseas students pay a lot more. Their work hours are restricted, so it can be tough to pay it off. You need fairly rich parents back home, or someone here who's willing to fork out (like a partner).

All sides of Australian politics are hooked on immigration because it bloats the GDP and hides falling income and rising costs.

All Australians are paying a tax for excessive immigration by downward pressure on wages, rising accommodation costs, congested roads and schools, overloaded hospitals, and rising costs of services.

Australia is the only developed country that accepts such high levels of immigration.

Not at all, dear. America has much higher immigration. Australia is merely following suit.

Not entirely correct. Of course there are lies damn lies and then statistics but if you use the world bank stats of net migration (immigrants per capita) the results are pretty clear.There are relatively small countries of fairly homogenous populations below 10 million or so that have higher per capita immigration intake, including places like Norway and Switzerland etc (who by the way are now reducing/limiting those rates for numerous reasons). There are also places like The Cayman Islands and Luxembourg etc that have higher net immigration rates. However if you exclude those few countries and count only comparable countries with populations over 20 million then Australia has by far the highest net immigration rate according to the world bank stats for 5 year period to 2012.

Australia tops the list with 45 immigrants per 1000 capita. The next highest is Canada with 33 immigrants per 1000 capita followed by Saudi Arabia with 28. Then Turkey with 26 and Iraq with 16. The United States comes next with 15.9 immigrants per 1000 population. In other words Australia has a net immigration rate 3 times that of the USA and has by a very long margin the highest per capita immigration rate of any large developed country in the world (over 20 million). We are most certainly an anomaly within the world sphere in this area.

All sides of Australian politics are hooked on immigration because it bloats the GDP and hides falling income and rising costs.

All Australians are paying a tax for excessive immigration by downward pressure on wages, rising accommodation costs, congested roads and schools, overloaded hospitals, and rising costs of services.

Australia is the only developed country that accepts such high levels of immigration.

Not at all, dear. America has much higher immigration. Australia is merely following suit.

Not entirely correct. Of course there are lies damn lies and then statistics but if you use the world bank stats of net migration (immigrants per capita) the results are pretty clear.There are relatively small countries of fairly homogenous populations below 10 million or so that have higher per capita immigration intake, including places like Norway and Iceland etc (who by the way are now reducing/limiting those rates for numerous reasons). There are also places like The Cayman Islands and Luxembourg etc that have higher net immigration rates. However if you exclude those few countries and count only comparable countries with populations over 20 million then Australia has by far the highest net immigration rate according to the world bank stats for 5 year period to 2012.

Australia tops the list with 45 immigrants per 1000 capita. The next highest is Canada with 33 immigrants per 1000 capita followed by Saudi Arabia with 28. Then Turkey with 26 and Iraq with 16. The United States comes next with 15.9 immigrants per 1000 population. In other words Australia has a net immigration rate 3 times that of the USA and has by a very long margin the highest per capita immigration rate of any large developed country in the world (over 20 million). We are most certainly an anomaly within the world sphere in this area.

Thanks, Goose, that's good to know. So Australia is indeed the highest.

I can't see the Caymans counting for much. The only people moving there would be retired millionaires and shell companies. Countries like the Caymans and the Channel Islands are British colonies set up solely for investment purposes.

All sides of Australian politics are hooked on immigration because it bloats the GDP and hides falling income and rising costs.

All Australians are paying a tax for excessive immigration by downward pressure on wages, rising accommodation costs, congested roads and schools, overloaded hospitals, and rising costs of services.

Australia is the only developed country that accepts such high levels of immigration.

Not at all, dear. America has much higher immigration. Australia is merely following suit.

Not entirely correct. Of course there are lies damn lies and then statistics but if you use the world bank stats of net migration (immigrants per capita) the results are pretty clear.There are relatively small countries of fairly homogenous populations below 10 million or so that have higher per capita immigration intake, including places like Norway and Iceland etc (who by the way are now reducing/limiting those rates for numerous reasons). There are also places like The Cayman Islands and Luxembourg etc that have higher net immigration rates. However if you exclude those few countries and count only comparable countries with populations over 20 million then Australia has by far the highest net immigration rate according to the world bank stats for 5 year period to 2012.

Australia tops the list with 45 immigrants per 1000 capita. The next highest is Canada with 33 immigrants per 1000 capita followed by Saudi Arabia with 28. Then Turkey with 26 and Iraq with 16. The United States comes next with 15.9 immigrants per 1000 population. In other words Australia has a net immigration rate 3 times that of the USA and has by a very long margin the highest per capita immigration rate of any large developed country in the world (over 20 million). We are most certainly an anomaly within the world sphere in this area.

Thanks, Goose, that's good to know. So Australia is indeed the highest.

I can't see the Caymans counting for much. The only people moving there would be retired millionaires and shell companies. Countries like the Caymans and the Channel Islands are British colonies set up solely for investment purposes.

What about the UK? That must be high.

The UK comes in at 14.3 immigrants per 1000 population, not even a third of Australia's migration levels.. Much of the so called immigration numbers issue in the UK has taken place less quickly and over a comparatively much longer period I believe but I don't have figures to confirm that.

I did a diploma in IT in the early 2000s. All my classes were dominated by Indians (plus a few Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans). I got to know a lot of them really well. I can't think of a single one of them who didn't end up getting PR in Australia.

Unrestrained immigration is changing the face of the Australian economy. It is causing resources and agriculture to become a shrinking component of the GDP while services are increasing and imports of manufactured goods are accelerating.

The Australian economy is not booming so strongly that it needs unrestrained immigration.